Debate.org: Mestari's Debates

One Should Not Presume Atheism

2012-04-10T04:09:34-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

I thank Mestari for the opportunity to debate this interesting topic. I also note that this topic is part of MIG’s ongoing debate tournament.

The resolution ‘One Should Not Presume Atheism’ is an often discussed issue in religious matters, yet as this debate will show, the issue extends to many other types of claims. In this manner one might draw some parallels to epistemology. The resolution refers to situations where one has no evidence or proof given to them. In this sense the resolution is equivalent to saying ‘Atheists do not need proof’.
I welcome Mestari again for one final showdown of this New Member Tournament Finals. 5 months later, finally! I wish her luck and thank her again. Now to proceed:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted.

1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule.

2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. R5 is for final rebuttals, no

DetectableNinja's Tournament: Sex offenders should be sterilized/chemically castrated.

2011-10-24T21:49:38-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Sorry about the previous mistake in the set-up. Everything should be fine now. Good luck.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Final Rebuttal/Closing Statement

Sex Offender (1): an individual who was convicted of a sex offense.

We will be using the list of sex offenses and relevant definitions provided by the above source.

Sterilized/Chemically Castrated: The ongoing regular injections of anti-androgens in order to achieve the effect of temporary sterilization.

---Sources---

1. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_42_00016911----000-.html

New Members Tournament: Murder is Never Morally Permissible.

2011-09-25T20:41:15-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

This debate will be between Thett3 and myself for the New Members Tournament.

Round 1: Acceptance.
Round 2: Cases.
Round 3: Rebuttal of round 2.
Round 4: Rebuttal of round 3.

Murder (1): To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.

1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder?show=1&t=1315868499

Most important FAKE Battles in history!

2012-08-22T06:43:26-08:00

(Post Voting Period) You read the title correctly people, this debate will be arguing about the most important FAKE battles in history. You see, in normal "Most important battles in history" debates, any idiot can google "most important battles in history", pick one, and then post that as their turn, Thats exactly what I did recently against Historygenius and I still got my a** kicked. But I got stuck in an elevator with wet paint for four hours and the fumes I inhaled helped me realize something. The first was that Justin Bieber could never be a dad because he isnt a dude, the second thing is that it takes a true idiot to go through all of Hollywood history and find the most legendary FAKE battles in history. Heres how it works 1) 4 rounds 2) The fake battles you post must be taken from a Hollywood movie 3) You must show footage of the battle from the movie 4) The Movie battle cant be based off of any real or possibly real event in real life (So you cant pick the movie

Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound

2012-03-17T15:10:41-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound.

Rounds:

1. Acceptance only
2. Opening arguments
3. Clash
4. Closing arguments/clash

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA)

Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
The universe is an existing thing.
Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

I ask readers to take note that we should rationally accept an argument as sound if the affirmation of its premises is more plausible than the negation.

The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god.

2012-03-30T04:04:37-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

There are many to choose from. Only one per debate.

Argument must be logical

First round is acceptence!

NEWBIE TOURNEY: Executing Criminals is Justified. (Death Penalty Debate)

2011-08-27T19:47:20-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Greetings to my opponent.

I wish him luck as we participate in this DDO Tourney.

Debating Standards:

Standard debating rules/ethics will apply. 72 hours of argumentation in this 3 round debate. 8K character limit, RFD voting style lasting 2 weeks.

R1- Opening Statements (No evidence should be presented yet).
R2- Arguments/Rebuttals
R3- Final Rebuttals/Summary/Closings

Definitions:

Death Penalty/Capital Punishment- is the sentence of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence. [1]
To execute- to inflict capital puni

Offshore oil drilling in the United States should be legalized

2011-07-26T21:08:57-08:00

(Post Voting Period) Round 1 is acceptance, and then I will post my opening argument round 2, same as Con. After that it's simple debate procedure Round 3: Refutations/argument expansions Round 4: Final refutations, conclusions (No new arguments or facts!) I eagerly await someone to accept this challenge.

There are no compelling proofs or arguments for the existence of God

2012-08-22T04:27:10-08:00

(Post Voting Period) My contention is that there are no compelling arguments or proofs for the existence of God which cannot be convincingly rebutted. I won't provide any arguments in this opening round as my challenger holds the burden of proof and I have nothing to affirm, only negate. A precursor for acceptance of this debate is that you accept the fact of evolution, as I'm nothing but a layman to the subject. Also, I won't be present to debate after around Thursday midday (British time) so this debate will need to be accepted quickly or it will be cancelled. Thanks.

The Teleological Argument is a sound argument for the existence of God.

2012-04-19T22:14:30-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

I wish to challenge Mestari to a debate on the Teleological Argument. As two Theists, the purpose of this debate is not to show whether or not the existence of God is probably, but simply to show whether or not the Teleological Argument (i.e. the argument from design) is a sound argument for God's existence.

The form of the argument I will be defending is as follows:

1) The universe resulted either from design or from chance.
2) It is highly improbable that it resulted from chance.
3) Hence, it is highly probable that the universe was designed. [1]

Round one for acceptance.
Round two for opening arguments/rebuttals.
Round three for rebuttals.
Round four for rebuttals/closing statements.

I look forward to the debate.

[1] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p. 718.

Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound - 4

2012-04-18T12:56:36-08:00

(Post Voting Period)

Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound.

Rounds:

1. Acceptance only
2. Opening arguments
3. Clash
4. Closing arguments/clash

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA)

Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

The universe is an existing thing.

Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

I cite the The Nature of God by A.W. Pink [1] to describe the complexity of the Lord:

[F]rom a review of the perfections of God, it appears that He is an all-sufficient Being. He is all-sufficient in

Addiction is NOT a "disease"

2011-08-14T17:50:50-08:00
(Voting Period) I am stanch against any person who believes any form of addiction is a disease.I am aware of the definition and not confused between the two people who mis label themselves with a drug addiction compared to someone with a true disease(such as cancer) the difference is the person does not go looking for a "quick chemo" fix. The persons who are addicted CHOSE to do that to themselves and do not get my sympathy they do not suddenly have a affliction stemming from genetic disorder,or working in hazard conditions the people who label a drinking problem,drug addiction as a "disease" are in fact saying I'm a junkie,bar fly (etc)smooth over the truth in a measured amount. It was enacted as a buffer for those who needed higher self esteem without the feelings of shame.

MIG's Tournament Round 2: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

2012-05-06T14:32:34-08:00
(Post Voting Period)

This debate will be for the second round of MIG's tournament between my esteemed opponent RoyLatham and myself.

Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound.

Rounds:

1. Acceptance only
2. Opening arguments
3. Clash
4. Closing arguments/clash

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA)

Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

The universe is an existing thing

Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

I cite the The Nature of God by A.W. Pink [1] to describe the complexity of the Lord:

[F]rom a review of the perfections of God, it appears that He is an all-s

Impossiblity Exists (Inspired by a True Story)

2011-08-05T13:24:38-08:00
(Voting Period)
The debate between TheHost and BlackVoid http://www.debate.org/debates/Impossibility-exists./1/ has inspired me to debate the same topic a I find the resolution interesting.

In accepting the debate you accept the burdens and definitions provided below.

For clarification, the burden of the Pro is to prove that the concept of impossibility exists. It is burden of the Con to simply prove the Pro's arguments false.

The first round is for acceptance. Opening arguments will be made in round 2.

Impossibility [1]: the quality or state of being impossible
Impossible [2]: incapable of being or of occurring
Exist [3]: to have real being whether material or spiritual
Being [4]:

A state has NO RIGHT to peaceably secede from America.

2011-07-22T07:45:08-08:00
(Post Voting Period)
My initial position is that a state has no right to secede from the Union of the United States. I will begin by defining the key phrases being used.

Secede: "to withdraw from an organization (as a religious communion or political party or federation)" In this case, secession is the withdrawal from a federation as a separate and sovereign nation.

Right: "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature"

My argument shall be centered around three contentions:

1. When the original colonies ratified the Constitution, when the territories agreed to enter the Union, when The Republic of Texas asked to join the Union, and when the kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown by American missionaries, each and everyone of those regions immediately ceded their land, jurisdiction, and status as a separate governing entity to the federal government of the U

Does Communism Work?

2011-11-14T22:49:17-08:00
(Post Voting Period) Round 1 is acceptance, definitions, and rules. Definitions Communism - as defined by Karl Marx Rules Arguments in the comments section results in forfeiting the debate You have 2,000 characters to complete your argument in. This is a debate about Communism not Capitalism. Debating anything but Communism will result in forfeit of the debate. Good luck Pro.

Secession is justified (morally)

2011-10-11T06:04:13-08:00
(Post Voting Period)
I am happy to debate Mestari once more on this issue. I will, however be using the same opening argument from a previous debate with Sociopinko since that debate was forfeited.

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 4: Rebuttals

No semantics.

Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound - 2

2012-03-20T13:04:25-08:00
(Post Voting Period)
Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound.

Rounds:

1. Acceptance only
2. Opening arguments
3. Clash
4. Closing arguments/clash

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA)

Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

The universe is an existing thing.

Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

I cite the The Nature of God by A.W. Pink [1] to describe the complexity of the Lord:

[F]rom a review of the perfections of God, it appears that He is an all-sufficient Being. He is all-sufficient in Himself and to Himself. As the First of beings, He could receive nothing from another, nor be limited by the po

Don't keep up with the Joneses!

2011-11-11T01:57:00-08:00
(Post Voting Period)

This is intended to be a humorous debate. I’d appreciate humorous arguments, although I’ll obviously allow serious arguments.